"What’s so crazy or loony about the idea?"
It's not just crazy; it's batshit insane.
According to polling, majorities in this country believe the U.S. is a Christian nation; that the account of creation in the Bible is literally true; and that freedom of speech guaranteed in the First Amendment "may go too far."
In fact, most people (including those currently in power in Washington, D.C.) believe the Constitution is designed to protect the rights of the majority, not to guarantee the rights of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.
I LIKE living in a secular democracy where minority rights have a chance of being protected, even if I have to regularly fight to keep it that way (and sometimes lose individual battles). God is not mentioned in the Constitution. Do you seriously believe it would stay that way in a modern rewrite? Opening the Constitution to wholesale revision would be a disaster for anyone who loves the freedoms we enjoy.
Posted by RAM at September 30, 2007 06:10 AM[shakes head]
What did I just say?
Small. Small moves, like in the movie Contact when Jodie Foster is just a kid with the ham radio, eh? Incremental, bitches! "Opening the Constitution to wholesale revision..."
If we're foolish enough to try something radical if won't...ever...pass. Even if we were so stupid as to try something radical and fail at least the democratic muscles of the populace would be flexed for once!
Look, man, if God isn't in the Constitution how did it end up all over our money? What I'm sayin' is that the status quo seems to be good enough for you, while it is not for me. That does not make me batshit insane, fuckin' Jesus said we were supposed to be gentle with each other, you know?
Posted by paradox at September 30, 2007 06:27 AMEven Thomas Freidman sees a need for some drastic change. Does this mean we should stop counting the future in TF units?
Posted by Sharon at September 30, 2007 06:43 AMI'm all for another Constitutional convention. To take RAM's thoughts a step further, even if a Constitutional convention codified aspects of our modern politics that are awful and ignorant at least the country would be honest with itself and people who want to live in a secular democracy with a decent social safety system that doesn't start agressive wars could emigrate.
Posted by joejoejoe at September 30, 2007 07:11 AMHalf the Democratic base is Dawn of the Dead, dazed and wandering from repeated bitch-slaps of betrayal.
No. Half of the Democratic electorate are no different from republi-cons in their approach to politics. They are not well educated on the issues or the candidates. How many times do we see people supporting candidates on this forum who have not done even the basic homework of looking at voting records and past performance? It's not from being bitch-slapped. It's from treating the life or death issues associated with politics like they are a team sport complete with cheerleaders.
Constitutional Convention
Once had an interesting discussion in a grad level government class taught by a civil rights lawyer. He ran an example of how the sedition laws would be used to imprison anyone who tried to organize such a thing.
I really don't think we'll ever see a Constitutional Convention like the first one. The great minds who were willing to sacrifice everything they owned -including their lives- to form the nation are no longer available to us. If we had a Jefferson or a Madison or a Jay or a Washington they would be obliterated in the 24/7-Brittany-is-stoned news cycle.
You look at what we've become. We're an incarceration and "law and order" (interpreted as squashing your rights) society. Much like Spain during the conquests, we have massive wealth pouring in, but we leveraged that wealth through loans from other countries. So the wealthy get wealthier while most others don't share in the largess. We debate issues of common humanity (health, food, shelter) and deny those who often need the most to perpetuate the cycle of money flowing to the wealthy.
My home, cars, and possessions are all paid. I have no debt at the end of the month. Yet during the Buschco administration I've had no real increase in income and I get to watch others get massive increases in the administration above me. My utilities have almost tripled. I'm seeing 10% increases in food cost. Occiasionly, the things I purchase take huge jumps in price from month to month. My property taxes are increasing and my sales tax just went to 11%. User fees are going up. My health insurance increased 33% but leaves me with larger copays on everything and a growing list of medications and procedures that I can't get coverage for.
I think the pressure from the bottom for change will likely overwhelm Washington or we'll just glide into 2nd world status -although with a bunch of nukes and a big military. I do take heart when I see State legislatures and local governments call for impeachment.
Since the cause of the national problem is corporate and special interest money purchasing the votes of our representatives, the quickest path to change is to either to end that money flow or replace incumbents with those who promise not to participate in the cash-for-votes scam. Since most watch their politics like a football game I don't think we'll see a big movement to get rid of the incumbents.
So I think change has to occur at the State level with State legislation that prevents national representatives from taking money from interest groups. Many States, mine included, set firm limits on lobbyist contributions to State representatives. There should be no reason why the people of a State can't limit the amount of money their national representatives receive from corporations and other monied interests. Washington is entirely unresponsive to us, but we can yank the hell out our governments at the State and local level. That may be the parsimonious path to change. A few people writing letters and contacting representatives in each State could make a massive difference.
Posted by phidipides at September 30, 2007 08:09 AMParadox, it's a great idea, but I have a sneaking suspicion you're not in a good mood today. However, I am a dunce.
Posted by tempus at September 30, 2007 11:03 AMsnark, i"m sorry. My link was to the wrong photo. But all of it was so many years and lives ago. It doesn't really matter anymore. And everybody try and get along. Dick Cheney is still out there, which is very bad for planet Earth.
Posted by tempus at September 30, 2007 11:35 AMphid - right on. Sabato's idea is a non-starter because it depends on those with the power to give up some of that. ha, ha. Like all the all the states not in the ten that would get two more Senators would gladly reduce their power. And today, there are no wise men and women in DC. They've appeared only three times in the history of thise country at the beginning, under Lincoln and under FDR. Almost everything in between has been about enriching those who have, both money and power. Not going to chance in the absence of another national crisis. A real one and not the phony ones that political hacks have been hawking for at least 150 years.
Posted by Marie at September 30, 2007 11:53 AMI just read his post. He would like to see a convention of the states to reform the electoral college, increase representation in the Senate, change term limits for federal judges, and install universal service for young people.
Although I am in favor of some form of universal service; I believe it will not result in the implied social change in viewpoint that many Liberals / Progressives believe it would (i.e. a more sensible and less militaristic foreign policy). Without a massive dose of trust-busting and large-scale reigning in of our Corporate-Plutocracy, I believe Universal Service would just hand greater flexibility to our military-industrial complex for an increased-degree of global pillage...and it's irrelevant whether the executive or legislative branches control the use of the military. Without domestic economic reform, no amount of change to our constitution will excise the profit motive or reduce the amount of corruption amongst our leadership.
The crux of the problem with our federal government is that today's executive branch is almost entirely unconstitutional.
Unfortunately for all of us, I don't believe there are enough Americans that think what we're doing, both here at home and around the globe, is wrong. I don't know about where you live, but I can barely bring up the war in Iraq at all with anyone I come into contact with every day without being shunned, chided, or lectured on the need for 'increased security'. Thus, even with the most fair and unbiased system, I'm not sure any of these changes would result in a more sane United States.
Posted by Tampa Student at September 30, 2007 02:09 PM"..no amount of change to our constitution"
No amount of change to our constitution that does NOT involve wholesale reform and regulation of Corporate influence.
Posted by Tampa Student at September 30, 2007 02:14 PMNo Constitution--revise it how you will--can be made self-enforcing. The revisions, even if ideal unto themselves, will therefore not have the effect they were intended to have.
In any event, any Convention would undoubtedly be hijacked by the Christians.
Posted by Frank Wilhoit at September 30, 2007 03:50 PMMarie: Teddy Roosevelt also did much good.
As for a Constitutional Convention, I'm all for it. We can enshrine the majority support for privacy to keep abortion sage and lefal and eliminate govt involvement in sex lives. That'll keep the Christianists occupied while us liberals recruit everyone else to legalize weed-filled sex orgies and literacy tests before morons can run for President again.
Posted by Kevin Hayden at October 1, 2007 07:18 AMsage and lefal
Isn't that a lovely middle-eastern dish served with tomatoes?
Posted by phidipides at October 1, 2007 09:50 AMThe first Constitutional Convention was not even called that. It had a limited charter to revise the Articles of Confederation with respect to trade disputes between the states. It was held in secret. It was really a coup detat.
We don't have the political maturity to revise the Constitution. We don't have the discipline to follow the Constitution we have.
This is a very dangerous idea.
Posted by skeptic at October 1, 2007 10:18 AMBe careful what you wish for!
A Constitutional Convention will consist almost unanimously of elected politicians, local or national. Many if not most will be conservative and/or religiously orientated. Liberals will be left out!
Once constituted it will decide which changes it will and will not elect to consider. There is no convention charter which can limit it's scope.
Here is what you can expect:
Religion in
Civil Rights out
Reproductive choice out
Gay Rights out
Bill of Rights out
Imperial Presidency in
Spying on Americans in
Marshall Law in
Discent out
most importantly
Money in Politics IN
Anyone who correctly sees the need for constitutional amendments should seriously examine the materials at www.foavc.org and become a member
Posted by Joel S. Hirschhorn at October 1, 2007 04:14 PMA serious effort to convene a Constitutional Convention is now underway. The ultimate goal is autonomous regional government. See link below for more info:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NationalConstitutionalConvention06
Posted by Eric Reinhardt at October 6, 2007 07:18 PM